Also: arguing with proponents of Intelligent Design is ridiculously frustrating. Much like skeptics in other areas, they blather on and on and on and on about their logic and use of math, and use neither. One schtick that I am thoroughly fed up of is x is implausible, therefore y. Plausibility matters only in a relational sense. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Arthur Conan Doyle, through the mouthpiece of Holmes. Give me a POSSIBLE god, and we can discuss how plausible it is in the face of evolutionary theory. Secondly: The incessant arguing in favour of a designer, but refusing to pin it down drives me nuts. Design is the most plausible, therefore lets toss methodological naturalism. I am appalled that none of them realise that they have yet to eliminate alien intervention as an explanation. Its a simple disjuction people: intelligent agents can fall within the natural realm too.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 04:08:27 +0000